{¶1}
On January 29, 2016, a jury found the Appellant, Allan
Vertucci, guilty of the offense of theft from a person in a
protected class. Mr. Vertucci appeals the order of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of the offense,
sentencing him to a term of three years, and ordering
restitution. We affirm.

I.

{¶2}
This case arises out of a business relationship whereby Mr.
Vertucci, a building contractor, worked on a series of
projects at the victims' residence for a period of just
over two years. In June 2012, the victims hired Mr. Vertucci
to repair their roof. Over the period of the next two years,
through July 2014, the victims paid Mr. Vertucci
approximately $80, 000.00 for a series of projects, plus
additional funds of approximately $7, 000.00 that went
towards materials. Despite being at the residence six days a
week during this period, most of these projects languished in
a state of disrepair, with the residence being described by
the Summit County chief building official as a site of
deconstruction, rather than a construction site. The official
noted: "It actually look[ed] like someone was trying to
demolish the home rather than put something together."

{¶3}
The chief building official further testified that projects
were left uncompleted and not done in a workmanlike manner,
and gave numerous examples. New windows were paid for by the
victims, but never ordered or installed by Mr. Vertucci,
despite the fact that he had removed the trim from the
windows. An energized circuit was left exposed, wiring was
left exposed, and an energized post switch was left hanging
out, all of which were shock hazards. A surface light fixture
over the shower was not completed. Kitchen and bath tile
projects were incomplete and not installed in a workmanlike
manner. A bathtub was removed, never to be replaced. The hall
bathroom had been stripped and gutted, with the fixtures and
plumbing removed. Bedroom and bathroom doors were removed and
never replaced. Carpet was missing.

{¶4}
There had been attempts at patching numerous areas of water
damage throughout the house, but it was not done in a
workmanlike manner. Insulated foam board was left exposed in
the basement, creating a fire hazard. A sump pump crock was
left uncovered, and plumbing was left unfinished. The septic
system was not completed and was not operational. Electrical
wiring outside of the house was left exposed above the grade.
The front yard was dug up and never filled, with water
pooling for lack of drainage. A pipe carrying water to the
street was incorrectly installed above grade, such that it
could freeze. Foundation repairs were started but not
completed, and grading was not properly done, and as a
result, drainage was directed at the basement of the
residence which caused the basement to flood. There was also
testimony, however, that Mr. Vertucci did finish certain
projects: the roof was repaired, a cabinet was constructed
under a stairway, and certain projects in the foyer and
kitchen were completed.

{¶5} After complaints about the
residence had been reported, the police conducted an
investigation, and Mr. Vertucci was eventually charged with
the offense of theft from a person in a protected class.
After a jury trial, Mr. Vertucci was found guilty, sentenced
to a prison term of three years, and ordered to pay
restitution in the amount of $87, 617.50. Mr. Vertucci now
appeals, raising three assignments of error.

II.

THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A
CONVICTION OF THEFT BY DECEPTION IN VIOLATION OF R.C.
2913.02(A)(3), DENYING TO DEFENDANT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL UNDER THE SIXTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.

{¶6}
In his first assignment of error, Mr. Vertucci argues that
there was insufficient evidence to support the trial
court's denial of his Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal and
to support the jury's verdict of guilty. We disagree.

{¶7}
Whether the evidence in a case is legally sufficient to
sustain a conviction is a question of law. State v.
Thompkins,78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). "In
essence, sufficiency is a test of adequacy."
Id. This Court reviews questions of law under a de
novo standard. State v. Trifari, 9th Dist. Medina
No. 08CA0043-M, 2009-Ohio-667, ¶ 12.

{¶8}
"An appellate court's function when reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction
is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine
whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the
average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt." State v. Jenks,61 Ohio St.3d 259
(1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. "The relevant
inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light
most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime proven
beyond a reasonable doubt." Id.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;{&para;9}
The indictment set forth that Mr. Vertucci committed the
crime of theft from a person in a protected class "in
that he did, with purpose to deprive the owner, * * * an
elderly person, of property or services, to wit: monies,
knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or
services by deception * * * in violation of Section
2913.02(A)(3) of the Ohio Revised Code * * *." Mr.
Vertucci argues that a contractor cannot be found guilty of
theft by deception if he actually begins work on the project
and asks us to apply the analysis used in State v.
Chait, 9th ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.